TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed a new anti-crime law on Tuesday that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee.

Supporters say the law is a logical extension of common law that allows homeowners who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their homes.

The new law expands that doctrine to include people in public places who feel threatened and could be subject to death or great bodily harm.

"To suggest that you can't defend yourself against a rapist, who's trying to drag you into an alley, or against a carjacker who's trying to drag you out of your car is nonsense," said Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association.

"The ability to protect yourself, your children or your spouse, is important, no matter where you are."

Critics of the new law, called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, have few objections to allowing people to protect themselves in their homes but say the bill will create a "Wild West" mentality in public, where residents may shoot first and ask questions later.

"There are going to be a lot of repercussions," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, a Democrat. "You could have someone reaching into their pocket and if the person felt threatened he could shoot."

Like many states, Florida courts have ruled that homeowners have a right to defend themselves in their homes. Florida courts have expanded the doctrine to include employees in their workplace and drivers who are attacked in their automobiles.

Outside the home, however, courts have ruled that most victims must at least attempt to escape before using deadly force, a provision gun advocates say puts victims at greater risk. The new law removes that requirement if a person has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

"All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral," Rep. Irv Slosberg, a Democrat, said during recent debate on the bill. [/QUOTE]

IMHO, the only difference the law will have is that less law abiding citizens will face legal troubles once they are forced to defend themselves.Folks that don't go looking for trouble will in most cases try to avoid it, regardless of whether or not they're required to by law. And the ones that DO go out of their way to stir something up don't give a hoot about something so puny as THE LAW!

Thats, terrible.Its feeding in to people's paranoia.What if there is a mother out on a stroll with her baby.An odd looking, unshaved guy walks towards her while she is alone in a big park.She craps herself and pulls out a gun to shoot the attacker, because the law protects her!The guy, it turns out, only wanted to ask the time.Ok, an exagerated example, but....Now they are giving the right to people to shoot first, ask questions later?DispicableWhy dont cops have that right in that case?DO NOT FIRE UNLESS FIRED UPON FIRST!!IF its good enough for your army in a war, then it should be good enough for your citizens!

Hoopla. All this does is put into writing, what is already being accepted in court. It will not change anything.

You are still obligated to justify that you felt fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another, and that your lack of response (with deadly force) would result in death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another. The only thing that is missing is that you don't have the legal obligation to flee in any and all circumstances (which is an entirely unreasonable obligation).

Anti gun people are twisting and manipulating the words to make this sound like a license to kill issue.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fletch1: The only thing that is missing is that you don't have the legal obligation to flee in any and all circumstances (which is an entirely unreasonable obligation).

Anti gun people are twisting and manipulating the words to make this sound like a license to kill issue.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?If someone is about to mug (and you SUSPECT, that they are carrying a knife which they may or may not have), and you have the chance to run away, but you dont instead you pull out a gun and shoot them.And you think that is right?You think that because someone is muging you, that you should be given the legal right to kill them, when you have the chance to run away?Are you nuts?The victim should always be favoured, but there are limits.Its called taking the law into your own hands.I dont want people walking around carrying guns! Thats crazy!What if some paranoid person i am walking up to decides that i am going to kill him and then he kills me.You think he should be supported in court?How can the law prove that i was not going to kill him, it is his word against a dead guys, and the dead guys word does not count for much!And you are saying that there should be a law that would protect that paranoid dude?Think about it man.

Texas and many other states already have this legal principal. There is no legal duty to flee before attempting to defend yourself.You must still prove that any reasonable person in your circumstances would have acted in the same manner. It is far from endorsing a shoot first ask later mindset.

All the new law is stating is that you are not legally bound to flee first. The law use to state that you were legally bound to flee regardless of the circumstance before you could claim self defense, regardless if fleeing would have jeapordized your safety. This included if you were in your home.

This is also old news.

[This message has been edited by nekogami13 V2.0 (edited 04-29-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nekogami13 V2.0:Texas and many other states already have this legal principal. There is no legal duty to flee before attempting to defend yourself.You must still prove that any reasonable person in your circumstances would have acted in the same manner. It is far from endorsing a shoot first ask later mindset......This is also old news.

[This message has been edited by nekogami13 V2.0 (edited 04-29-2005).][/QUOTE]

Exactly!I'm far from being a rabid pro- gunner, but I seem to recall that similar dire consequences were envisioned first when the "Right to Carry" laws were enacted in several states, then when states started offering reciprocity to licensed carriers from other states. So far, the Wild West has yet to be resurrected.The fact is reasonable people will usually attempt to act reasonably regardless of the law, unreasonable folks will be unreasonable DESPITE the law.